Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
Every time I have watched one of those 1 1/8 or 1 1/4 mile races at Saratoga, the track looks very tiring. It almost reminds me of Del Mar in the sense that it doesn't seem to matter how slow they go, the come-from-behinders still seem to have the edge. Blind Luck came from well out of it, even though the pace was slow. Blame was able to run Quality Road down, even though the pace was just moderate. It's the same way at Del Mar. They can go :49 or slower and a horse like Richard's Kid can still win coming from way out of it.
With regard to RA's race at Saratoga last year, I thought she ran ok but I didn't think it was anywhere near one of her best performances. I know that she was taking on older males that day and I know that she set a pretty fast pace. Despite that, I would have still expected her to win a little easier if she would have run anything close to her best. Do I know for sure that it was because of the surface? No, I don't know that for sure. I'm simply saying that could be one possibility.
|
You named two horses that have proven they can overcome slow paces in the past at other tracks as well. That's hardly enough of a sample to compare Saratoga to a synthetic track. What about Glenwood Canyon running way better than he had any right to against Convocation on the lead? What about A Little Warm and Miner's Reserve going 1-2 around the track in the Jim Dandy? What about Winslow Homer wiring the field to win by a pole in the Curlin? What about Trickmeister doing the same in the Pleasant Colony? If anything, two-turn races at Saratoga this meet have been more kind to speed than closers. And this weekend's track was indisputably speed-favoring.
And as for the Woodward, horses just don't go :22 and :46 and 'win easy' at Saratoga. It doesn't happen. That she won at all is unbelievable and certainly doesn't support any antipathy for the surface.
08-31-2010, 06:05 PM
Threaded Mode